Palin?

I'm writing this without the "benefit" of the pundits' (right, left or middle) takes on McCain's pick, but I will admit this: When I heard the last name, I immediately thought of this Palin, and, it turns out, he may have been a wiser choice. At least he has some experience.

This choice, to me, is the death-knell for McCain. It makes the Democratic ticket look staid and solid; it makes the Republican ticket look like a trick, a con, a silly game. Obama suddenly becomes a relative veteran in all fields of governance compared to the heartbeat-away lady from where? I mean, could McCain have picked anyone with less experience governing people than a two-year (the least time anyone can have been governor, as of 2008, given the sequence of elections in this nation) executive of the nation's least-populated and most-irrelevant state? You can't write a less-credible story--Random House would throw your fiction manuscript back over the transom before it even landed on the desk.

Besides the obvious observations--including the one above--I have this thought: Think about those wavering independents. The ones who haven't chosen a party preference because they vote according to policy or personality, not party. Think what this choice tells them. I believe they now see what's afoot. An attempt by the Republican Party to win the White House by whatever means they can, even at the expense of our nation's fate and future. To which I say, Youbetcha--welcome to the real world, finally.

I have this final observation: As tempting as it is to think of this as McCain's "Harriet Miers moment," he's stuck with Palin. He can't back out of this blunder like Bush did with Miers, because he'd risk a McGovern-Eagleton style catastrophe, and undercut his "judgment" maxim. So, McCain is stuck with her for the next two months, and she'll be a gift to the Democrats that keeps on giving.

A new "surge" in Iraq

As the "surge" troops come home, private contractors take their place. Iraq: the war that keeps on giving.

The Iraqi Awakening

is awakening.

So--You thought you were having trouble making ends meet

Try living on a dollar--no, make that a dollar and a quarter--a day.

Just what the US Army needs in Iraq

another--actually, more of the same--public relations operation.

I watched tonight, the first night of the Democratic convention,

and I'm sold, totally sold, a goner, a devotee, a Kool-Aid-sucking, off-on-a-trip-to-some-distant-galaxy-cotravelling spirit. Yup, I'm that sold: Obama for President. Oh, did I mention, it's not Barack? It's Michelle.

For those of you who missed it, check this out and be amazed. And inspired.

Michelle Obama Delivers Keynote Address at DNC Convention

About Biden

On many issues, Biden's okay. He's a white-collar liberal (by which I mean a traditional, not-get-dirty type) on social and economic issues. No problem there. But as to Iraq, and the use of military force generally, Justin Raimondo's comments are, as usual, spot on.

(That website, Antiwar.com, is a great place to visit for one-issue essays. The contributors are of all political stripes, from Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan on the Right, to peacenik lefties. Their common denominator: Abhorrence of war, as immoral and/or as an effective solution to disputes.)

I promise...

This is not a headline from The Onion:

"US puts up bin Laden 'Wanted' posters in Afghanistan."

David Gergen's spot on

Ordinarily, I find Gergen too centrist in his views (he was, after all, an advisor to presidents of both parties), but this article about Obama's need for a "game-changer" presents my views precisely. I hope Obama's reading--and will follow--it, quickly.

John McCain

"The most dangerous man in America."

There's only one word to describe this

"operation" in Diyala Province of Iraq: Fubar.

Remember stagflation?

That's what they called the economic phenomenon, last felt during the 1970's, when prices were soaring while the economy was tanking. I hate to say it, but it's surely coming baaack!

Old news about news

Here's an article that proves its own point: a news story that, woefully belatedly, reports that media reporting of economic news lags behind both economic fact and readership interest in the state of the economy. To which I react: Duh.

I've changed my mind

I previously said I'd leave the US if McCain is elected in November. Instead, I think I'll get me one of these.

And now for some good news

Looks like all those running miles (approximately 32,000 since 1976, and still counting) will stand me in good stead.

How about these stories for irony?

The president of Georgia, having sent to Iraq the largest contingent of soldiers outside of those of Britain and the United States, in order to curry favor with Bush, is now withdrawing its troops because of Georgia's hostilities with Russia. And guess what: Their departure leaves unguarded several border crossings between Iraq and Iran, which the US contends are avenues for smuggling arms into Iraq.

Small world, eh?

And, get this: Iraq's government has okayed its first huge oilfield-development deal with a foreign government, namely, China. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Cheney's office right now.

"Why McCain May Well Win"

This article by Robert Parry summarizes aptly my feelings about the corporate media and the prospect of the imminent failure of the American experiment in capitalist democracy.

I'll say it again: If McCain wins, I'm outta here.

Below the radar, or off it entirely

It's eight am on Friday, August 8, and already the news that bin Laden's "driver" was given a mere slap on the wrist by way of sentence by the military jury has dropped from the news cycle. The sentence was rendered yesterday, but as of this moment the reports of it aren't shown on the front news pages of Google, Yahoo!, or Reuters.

If he'd gotten life, as was possible, the news would be everywhere. Or am I missing something?

Two clear choices

Okay, I've made up my mind. If McCain is elected, I'm moving to some other English-speaking nation. And if this professor's concept is adopted, I'm moving to some other galaxy.

Nonsense

This long-winded article about a supposed "shift" in US approach to combatting global terrorism is, at best, gobbledigook (sp?) and at worst maddeningly misguided. The piece tries to make some distinction between what the US has wrongheadedly done in the past with what it proposes to do, with equal ignorance, hereafter to "defeat terrorism."

God help us. We're governed by evil idiots. Can't anyone in power see that we're despised because of what we do in the world, and that the only way to quell the hatred the "third world" populations feel for us is to change what we do?

Am I missing something?